Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
Past the typical resurvey interval — a standard survey could occur at any time
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of June 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Aurora On France during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Surveyors found that food was stored on racks less than six inches from the floor in the freezer and that boxes were placed directly on the refrigerator floor after delivery. Additionally, clean dishes and food storage containers were stacked while still wet, contrary to facility policy requiring air drying before stacking. Staff confirmed these practices did not meet infection control and food safety standards.
Staff did not consistently follow infection prevention protocols, including proper use of PPE and hand hygiene, for residents on enhanced barrier or contact precautions. Multiple staff members entered precaution rooms without required gowns and gloves, performed high-contact care without full PPE, and failed to perform hand hygiene after resident contact, despite facility policies and posted signage.
Two residents who required assistance with personal hygiene were not provided care in a manner that preserved their dignity, as staff failed to address unwanted facial hair despite resident preferences and facility policy. Both residents were observed with visible facial hair, expressed discomfort or embarrassment, and staff interviews revealed inconsistent practices and lack of awareness regarding grooming needs.
The facility failed to implement new medication orders for a resident with heart failure and did not administer PRN antihypertensive medication or notify the provider for another resident with hypertension, despite multiple elevated blood pressure readings. In both cases, staff did not follow facility policies for order transcription, verification, and response to changes in condition.
A resident with cognitive impairments and aphasia was allegedly subjected to an inappropriate gesture by a staff member, which was reported by the resident's family member to the social worker. The social worker did not report the incident to the State Agency, believing it was not a reportable event. The DON and administrator were informed of the resident's distress but did not identify it as an abuse allegation, resulting in a failure to report the incident within the required timeframe.
A resident with cognitive impairments and aphasia was allegedly subjected to an inappropriate gesture by a staff member, which was reported by a family member. The social worker and DON failed to investigate the allegation, leaving the alleged perpetrator with continued access to vulnerable residents. The facility's policy on abuse prevention and response was not followed.
The facility failed to ensure proper sanitization of dishware, with dish machine temperatures not consistently reaching required levels, potentially affecting all 42 residents. Observations showed wash temperatures between 140 to 174 degrees and rinse temperatures between 165 to 192 degrees, below the manufacturer's minimum requirements. Staff inconsistently checked and recorded temperatures, and there was a lack of adherence to the facility's policy, which required wash temperatures between 140 to 160 degrees and rinse temperatures of at least 180 degrees.
A resident with impaired cognition and mobility was not repositioned every two hours as required, leading to the development of a pressure ulcer. Despite being at high risk for skin breakdown, the facility failed to implement necessary interventions upon admission. Observations showed the resident remained in the same position for extended periods, and staff misunderstood proper repositioning practices.
A resident admitted with an indwelling Foley catheter did not receive a voiding trial as ordered by the physician, leading to a deficiency in care. The facility's documentation lacked any record of the trial, and staff interviews revealed unawareness of the order. The resident's care plan included catheter care and monitoring for infection, but the voiding trial was missed, contrary to the facility's catheter care policy.
The facility failed to monitor side effects and implement non-pharmacological interventions for two residents prescribed psychotropic medications. One resident, with depression, lacked side effect monitoring in their care plan despite recommendations from a pharmacist. Another resident, with dementia and anxiety, was prescribed an antipsychotic without documented side effect monitoring. The facility's policy requires such monitoring and interventions, but these were not in place.
A facility failed to ensure staff wore appropriate PPE for a resident with a Foley catheter, as required by Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP). The resident's care plan indicated the need for EBP, but there was no signage or isolation cart to alert staff. Observations showed nursing assistants did not wear gowns while handling the catheter, and interviews confirmed staff were unaware of the EBP requirement due to the absence of signage.
The facility failed to ensure that three residents were offered or received pneumococcal vaccinations per CDC guidelines. Their records lacked documentation of shared clinical decision-making for the PCV-20 vaccine. Staff interviews revealed gaps in tracking and decision-making processes, with one resident not listed on the vaccine spreadsheet and another's vaccination status uncertain. The facility's policy required adherence to CDC guidelines and documentation of refusals, which were not consistently followed.
A facility failed to ensure a resident received or was offered the COVID-19 vaccination, as required by their preparedness plan. The resident, with a history of multiple health conditions, had received previous COVID-19 vaccinations, but the facility's EHR lacked documentation of the latest immunization and whether a second dose was offered. Staff interviews revealed inconsistencies in the vaccination process, and the resident was not listed on the infection preventionist's tracking spreadsheet.
The facility failed to develop comprehensive care plans for two residents prescribed antipsychotic medications, lacking measures for side effect monitoring. One resident with dementia was prescribed quetiapine fumarate, and another with intact cognition was on fluoxetine for depression. Despite recommendations from the pharmacist, the care plans did not include necessary interventions for side effect monitoring, which was acknowledged by the DON.
Improper Food Storage and Wet Dish Stacking Identified
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors observed multiple deficiencies in food storage and dish handling practices within the facility. During a kitchen tour, it was noted that food items, including a prep pan of raw whole turkeys, were stored on racks in the walk-in freezer that were less than six inches from the floor, with one rack's bottom shelf touching the floor. Additionally, boxes of food were found sitting directly on the floor of the first-floor refrigerator following a recent delivery. The culinary manager and dietary manager confirmed that these storage practices did not comply with facility policy, which requires food to be stored at least six inches off the floor. Further observations revealed that clean dishes, including plastic glasses and food storage containers, were stacked while still wet, with visible moisture present between and inside the items. Both the culinary manager and dietary aide acknowledged that dishes should be completely air dried before stacking, as per facility policy, to prevent infection risks. These practices were confirmed through interviews and direct observation, indicating a failure to adhere to established food storage and dishwashing protocols.
Failure to Adhere to Infection Control Standards and PPE Use
Penalty
Summary
Staff failed to adhere to infection prevention and control standards, specifically regarding the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and proper hand hygiene, for three residents under enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) or contact precautions. For one resident with a chronic right foot ulcer and multiple comorbidities, a therapy assistant was observed wearing gloves but not a gown during high-contact care activities, and also wore gloves outside the resident's room, contrary to facility policy. The therapy assistant acknowledged receiving infection prevention training and recognized the error in PPE use and glove handling. Another resident, with a history of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection and other medical conditions, was on contact precautions. Multiple staff members, including a physical therapy aide and nursing assistants, entered the resident's room without donning the required gown and gloves, and failed to perform hand hygiene after leaving the room. Staff interviews revealed awareness of the precautions but lapses in compliance, with some staff citing being in a hurry or believing PPE was unnecessary if the resident was not touched. A third resident, on EBP following joint replacement surgery and with several chronic conditions, received high-contact care from a nursing assistant who wore gloves but not a gown, and was unaware of the specific reason for the precautions. The facility's policies required gowns and gloves for high-contact care in EBP and contact precaution rooms, and mandated hand hygiene after glove removal and before leaving resident rooms. The director of nursing confirmed that staff were expected to follow these protocols and acknowledged the observed lapses.
Failure to Preserve Resident Dignity in Personal Grooming
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that care was provided in a manner that preserved the dignity of two residents who required assistance with personal hygiene and had preferences regarding facial hair removal. One resident, who was moderately cognitively impaired and had multiple diagnoses including impaired vision, was observed on multiple occasions with several long chin hairs. The resident was unaware of the facial hair and stated they would have wanted it removed if they had known. Staff interviews revealed inconsistent practices and a lack of initiative in addressing unwanted facial hair, with some staff stating they would not offer to remove chin hairs and others indicating it was a personal issue. The resident's care plan included instructions for personal hygiene assistance and reminders to wear glasses, but did not address facial hair preferences. Another resident, who had intact cognition and required assistance with personal hygiene, was observed with significant facial hair despite a care plan indicating a preference for facial hair removal to maintain dignity. The resident expressed embarrassment and discomfort about the facial hair, stating that at home they would have removed it themselves. Staff were unaware of the resident's concerns and did not address the issue until after it was brought to their attention. Facility policies indicated that residents should be groomed as they wish and that both men and women should have facial hair shaved as part of morning care, but these policies were not consistently followed for the residents involved.
Failure to Implement Provider Orders and Respond to Abnormal Clinical Findings
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement and document new medication orders and to recognize and respond to abnormal clinical findings for two residents. For one resident with a history of heart failure, hypertension, and other significant comorbidities, a provider issued a new order to increase the dose of furosemide due to weight gain and fluid retention. The order, sent via fax and email, was not entered into the electronic medical record (EMR) or administered as prescribed. Facility staff did not clarify the order with the provider or follow up over the weekend, resulting in the resident not receiving the intended increased dose. Documentation and interviews confirmed the order was missed, and the facility's policy requiring double verification and communication of new orders was not followed. For another resident with hypertension and renal insufficiency, the facility failed to administer as-needed (PRN) antihypertensive medication despite multiple blood pressure readings that met the criteria for intervention. The resident's medication administration record showed that the PRN medication was never given, and there was no documentation of provider notification or alternative interventions for the elevated blood pressures. Staff interviews confirmed that the process for responding to abnormal blood pressure readings was not followed, and the director of nursing acknowledged that each missed dose constituted a medication error. Facility policies required prompt transcription and verification of new orders, as well as immediate provider notification and intervention for changes in resident condition. In both cases, the facility did not adhere to these policies, resulting in failures to provide care and treatment according to provider orders and the residents' clinical needs.
Failure to Report Alleged Abuse in a Timely Manner
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report an allegation of staff-to-resident abuse to the State Agency within the required two-hour timeframe. The incident involved a resident with cognitive impairments and aphasia, who required extensive assistance with activities of daily living. The resident's family member reported that the resident was upset after a staff member allegedly made an inappropriate gesture towards them. Despite the family member notifying the social worker about the incident, the social worker did not report it to the State Agency, believing it was not a reportable event since the allegation was not directly heard from the resident. The Director of Nursing and the administrator were informed that the resident was upset, but neither determined that an allegation of abuse had occurred. Consequently, the incident was not reported to the State Agency. The facility's policy mandates that all alleged violations involving abuse must be reported immediately, but this protocol was not followed. The policy also defines verbal abuse to include gestured language that is disparaging or derogatory, which was relevant to the incident in question.
Failure to Investigate Alleged Abuse and Protect Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete an investigation and ensure protection for residents following an allegation of staff-to-resident abuse involving a resident with cognitive impairments and aphasia. The resident, who required extensive assistance with activities of daily living, was reported by a family member to have been upset after a staff member allegedly made an inappropriate gesture towards her. The family member reported the incident to the social worker, who attempted to discuss the matter with the resident but was unable to understand her due to her aphasia. The social worker reported the allegation to the director of nursing but did not conduct further investigation. The director of nursing was unaware of the specific allegation of abuse and assumed the resident's distress was related to a previous hospital stay. Consequently, no investigation was initiated, and the alleged perpetrator continued to have access to the resident and other vulnerable individuals. The facility's administrator confirmed that no investigation had been conducted, and the facility's policy on abuse prevention and response was not followed. This policy required immediate reporting, protection of the resident, and suspension of the employee in question pending investigation.
Dishware Sanitization Deficiency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that dishware was cleaned and sanitized properly, which could potentially affect all 42 residents. During observations, it was noted that the dish machine temperatures were not consistently reaching the required levels for effective sanitation. The wash temperatures recorded were between 140 to 174 degrees, and rinse temperatures were between 165 to 192 degrees, which did not always meet the manufacturer's minimum requirements of 150 degrees for wash and 180 degrees for rinse. Staff members, including dietary aides and the director of culinary, were observed using the dish machine with temperatures below the required levels, and there was inconsistency in checking and recording these temperatures. The facility's policy required wash temperatures to be between 140 to 160 degrees and rinse temperatures to be at least 180 degrees, with staff instructed to monitor and record temperatures for each meal service. However, the logs showed discrepancies, and the dish machine's temperatures for dinner had not been recorded at the time of observation. Staff members were expected to notify supervisors if temperatures were not as specified, but there was a lack of consistent adherence to this protocol. The director of culinary acknowledged the importance of maintaining proper temperatures to prevent foodborne illness but relied on staff to report issues, which did not always occur promptly.
Failure to Prevent and Manage Pressure Ulcers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement interventions to prevent pressure ulcers and ensure timely repositioning for a resident with existing pressure ulcers. The resident, identified as R13, had moderately impaired cognition and was diagnosed with hemiplegia, hemiparesis, chronic pain, and polyneuropathy. R13 required substantial assistance with bed mobility and was at risk for skin breakdown due to decreased mobility, bowel incontinence, and medication use. Despite these risks, the facility did not implement adequate interventions upon admission, and a deep tissue injury was noted on R13's right heel. Observations revealed that R13 was not repositioned every two hours as required. During a continuous observation period, R13 remained in the same position for extended periods, with staff entering the room for various tasks but not repositioning the resident. Interviews with staff indicated a lack of understanding of what constitutes repositioning, with some staff considering raising the head of the bed as repositioning, which is not sufficient to relieve pressure. The facility's policy required skin risk assessments and appropriate interventions upon admission, but these were not implemented for R13. Interviews with nursing staff and management highlighted a failure to add skin interventions upon admission and a misunderstanding of repositioning practices. The facility's director of nursing confirmed that interventions should be added immediately for residents at risk of skin breakdown, but this was not done for R13, leading to the development of a pressure ulcer.
Failure to Conduct Voiding Trial for Resident with Indwelling Catheter
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to remove a Foley catheter according to physician orders for a resident (R4) who was admitted with an indwelling catheter. R4's admission records indicated a need for a voiding trial within five days of admission, as per hospital discharge orders. However, the facility's documentation, including the Physician Orders form, medication administration record (MAR), and treatment administration record (TAR), lacked any record of a voiding trial being conducted. Interviews with staff, including a licensed practical nurse (LPN) and a registered nurse (RN), revealed that they were unaware of the voiding trial order, and no documentation was found to indicate that the trial had been completed. R4 was admitted with a diagnosis of urinary retention and had a history of urinary incontinence. The resident's care plan included catheter care every shift and monitoring for signs of urinary tract infection. Despite these interventions, the voiding trial order was missed, and the catheter remained in place longer than necessary. The RN acknowledged the importance of completing a voiding trial to reduce the risk of infection and noted that the order had been overlooked. The Director of Nursing (DON) also confirmed that the voiding trial should have been documented and that staff were expected to clarify and document orders. The facility's policy on catheter care emphasized the removal of indwelling catheters as soon as possible to minimize infection risks. However, the failure to conduct and document the voiding trial for R4 indicated a lapse in following this policy. The oversight was attributed to a lack of communication and verification of orders among the staff, as highlighted by the RN's and DON's statements during interviews.
Failure to Monitor Psychotropic Medication Side Effects and Implement Non-Pharmacological Interventions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper monitoring and implementation of non-pharmacological interventions for residents prescribed psychotropic medications. Resident R4, who was admitted with intact cognition and depression, was prescribed fluoxetine and trazodone. However, the care plan for R4 lacked interventions for monitoring side effects of these medications. Despite recommendations from the consultant pharmacist to update the care plan with behavior, intervention, and side effect monitoring, these were not implemented. The Director of Nursing acknowledged the absence of non-pharmacological interventions and side effect monitoring in R4's care plan. Similarly, Resident R147, diagnosed with dementia and anxiety, was prescribed quetiapine fumarate for anxiety. The medication administration records for R147 did not include any side effect monitoring for the antipsychotic medication. Interviews with the LPN and RN confirmed that side effect monitoring was expected but not documented. The pharmacist had recommended side effect monitoring and non-pharmacological interventions, but these were not in place at the time of the survey. The facility's policy on psychopharmacological drug use requires monitoring for medication effectiveness and adverse consequences, with documentation in the resident's active record. It also emphasizes the use of behavioral interventions and non-pharmacological approaches. However, the facility did not adhere to these policies, as evidenced by the lack of side effect monitoring and non-pharmacological interventions for residents R4 and R147.
Failure to Implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions for Resident with Foley Catheter
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that staff wore appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) for a resident with a Foley catheter, which was reviewed for infection prevention and control. The resident, who had intact cognition and was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene and transfers, had an indwelling catheter due to urinary retention and other medical conditions. Despite the resident's care plan indicating the need for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) due to the catheter, there was a lack of signage and instructions for EBP in the resident's room. Observations revealed that nursing assistants were not wearing gowns while handling the resident's catheter, and there was no signage or isolation cart to indicate the need for EBP. Interviews with staff, including nursing assistants, a trained medication aide, and a licensed practical nurse, confirmed the absence of EBP signage and the lack of awareness among staff regarding the resident's need for EBP. The facility's policy on Enhanced Barrier Precautions required the use of gowns and gloves during high-contact resident care activities, but the policy did not specify where staff should look to determine if a resident was on EBP. The director of nursing stated that staff should be alerted to EBP through signage and isolation carts, which were not present in this case.
Failure to Ensure Pneumococcal Vaccination Compliance
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that three out of five residents were offered or received pneumococcal vaccinations in accordance with CDC recommendations. The residents involved were identified as having received previous pneumococcal vaccinations, but their electronic health records lacked documentation of shared clinical decision-making regarding the administration of the PCV-20 vaccine. Specifically, the records for these residents did not reflect whether a decision had been made to administer the PCV-20 vaccine, which is recommended five years after the last pneumococcal vaccination under certain conditions. Interviews with facility staff revealed gaps in the vaccination tracking and decision-making process. The infection preventionist, responsible for tracking immunizations, had not included one of the residents on their vaccine spreadsheet and had not consulted with the provider about the need for the PCV-20 vaccine. Additionally, the infection preventionist was uncertain about the vaccination status of another resident and had not documented any refusal or declination of the PCV-20 vaccine. The facility's policy directed staff to follow CDC guidelines and document refusals, but these steps were not consistently followed, leading to the deficiency.
Failure to Document and Offer COVID-19 Vaccination
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the COVID-19 vaccination was offered and/or provided to a resident, identified as R16, to reduce the risk of severe illness. R16, who was admitted to the facility with intact cognition and a history of cancer, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, thyroid disorder, arthritis, and fracture, had received several COVID-19 vaccinations in the past. However, the facility's electronic health record (EHR) lacked documentation of the COVID-19 23-24 immunization and whether a second COVID-19 23-24 immunization was offered and accepted or declined. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of clarity and consistency in the process of checking vaccination records and obtaining consent. RN-C mentioned that the charge nurse or another unspecified person was responsible for checking vaccination records and obtaining consent, but RN-C had not administered COVID-19 vaccines to residents. RN-D stated that the infection preventionist (IP) tracked resident COVID vaccines and received pharmacy reviews, which were forwarded to the IP. The IP or nurses would administer the vaccines, and consents or refusals were documented in the residents' EHR. The infection preventionist (IP) explained that they reviewed residents' vaccine history and recommendations from the pharmacist, following CDC guidelines for vaccine timing. The IP maintained a spreadsheet listing resident names, vaccine information, consent status, and follow-up needs. However, R16 was not listed on the IP's vaccine spreadsheet, indicating a gap in the tracking and administration process. The facility's COVID-19 Preparedness Plan required staff to check residents' vaccination status upon admission and offer the vaccine to those who had not received it, but this was not adequately followed for R16.
Failure to Monitor Side Effects of Psychotropic Medications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop comprehensive care plans for monitoring side effects in two residents who were prescribed antipsychotic medications. One resident, identified as R147, had a diagnosis of dementia and was prescribed quetiapine fumarate for anxiety. However, the care plan for R147 did not include any measures for monitoring side effects of the antipsychotic medication. The Director of Nursing acknowledged that residents on antipsychotic medications should be monitored for side effects, and the facility's pharmacist had recommended such monitoring, along with non-pharmacological interventions and monthly orthostatic blood pressure checks, but these were not implemented in the care plan. Another resident, R4, who had intact cognition and was taking fluoxetine for depression, also lacked a care plan for monitoring side effects of psychotropic medications. The resident's Care Area Assessment indicated an increased risk for falling and depression due to antidepressant use, but the care plan did not include interventions for side effect monitoring. The facility's pharmacist had recommended updating the care plan to include behavior monitoring and side effect monitoring for psychotropic medications, but these recommendations were not followed. The Director of Nursing confirmed that the care plan should have included these interventions but did not.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 829 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 25 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Edina
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edenbrook Of Edina | 0.6 mi | — | 15 | 0 |
| Mount Olivet Careview Home | 2.3 mi | — | 7 | 0 |
| Mount Olivet Home | 2.3 mi | — | 7 | 0 |
| The Villas At Richfield | 3.4 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Grand Avenue Rest Home | 3.5 mi | — | 9 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Aurora On France.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 2026) and official state health department websites.